Large Format/"Premium" Theaters (IMAX 15/70, Digital IMAX, XD, ETX, RPX, etc.)

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

It would only matter if the lens actually covers the larger area, though. I'm talking about the physical light hitting the sensor and creating an image. The frame line tool alone doesn't take that into account and just assumes you're covering the whole sensor.

You can get a better idea from their Frame Line & Lens Illumination Tool, which is currently in beta:
https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/l...umination-tool

Unfortunately the lens selection for the tool is very limited as of right now, especially when it comes to anamorphics. And the choice of lenses you have varies depending on camera. So there's no way to use the tool to tell for sure if the Panavision lenses used on KotM would cover a larger area than the SXT sensor. The closest you can get is checking coverage of a couple 2x anamorphic lenses on the Alexa LF, and overlaying a frame line for the size of the SXT sensor.

In the spoiler are examples I put together of this. The full image is the Open Gate Alexa LF sensor, the wider blue box is the Open Gate SXT sensor, and the narrower box inside is the maximum area used for 2x anamorphic 2.39:1 scope on the XT/SXT:

[Show spoiler]
Arri's own Master Anamorphic line barely covers the SXT anamorphic scope area at its widest focal length.


Same for the only other line of 2x anamorphics the tool currently has, P+S Evolution lenses. You can see the coverage pattern is quite different as well because it varies from lens to lens even if they're both designed for Super 35.


The longest lens in Arri's series demonstrates that longer lenses have better coverage but softer edges to the image circle, which means more vignetting if you use a larger area.

So in these specific examples you could get a LITTLE bit of extra resolution on the larger Alexa 65 sensors, but not by much, and you'll run into serious vignetting if you push it. The Panavision lenses' image circles could be larger or smaller than these, though. Since they're all made for S35 I can't imagine they'd be SIGNIFICANTLY larger.

In the ASC article the cinematographer did say the 65 got them more resolution, so obviously I'll take his word for it. This is just there to show that it's probably not a major difference for the anamorphic shots (which are most of the movie).

I never understood using anamorphics on such large sensors, even if you wanted the extra resolution. If that's the case, they could've shot on the Red Weapon or on 35mm with a 4K scan.

[UFAlien]

I assume they went with Arris because of the "look" rather than raw pixel resolution. Arri claims part of the reason their stuff looks so good is because their sensors have comparatively low resolution/larger photosites, so the "quality" of their pixels is better in theory. Lower noise and such. And of course their digital color processing within the cameras is legendary. There's a reason they're far and away the market leader for big productions even when Red and Sony and Panavision offer higher pixel counts.

What's kind of funny is the article starts out talking about how the director wanted to embrace the look of these 70s and 80s sci-fi films, and how he's worried about the transition from film to digital and such -

"There is a moody and grounded quality in those films that we wanted to bring back," Dougherty continues. "Those filmmakers weren't afraid of shadows and grain. I miss the atmospherics and texture of those films. As we start to embrace digital, I worry the image is getting too clean and perfect all the time, which takes away from the tension you can build with darkness and shadow and splashes of light."

-and then immediately points out they shot digital anyway without really offering much of an explanation:

Despite Dougherty's concerns regarding overly crisp images, the filmmakers opted to shoot digitally. They considered Arri's Alexa XT Studio camera, but (cinematographer Lawrence) Sher believed the greater resolution of the large-format Alexa 65 system would better serve the big-scale, effects-heavy movie, which was destined for IMAX screens. The producers agreed...

"Mike and I love the anamorphic look in Alien and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and we wanted the feel of (anamorphic's) dirty imperfections," Sher explains. "We would go spherical to use more of the sensor for visual-effects shots that we knew we would have to reposition, or extend at the top or bottom, and to have a little less anamorphic distortion. The Alexa 65 gave us more image resolution, and when we went spherical it gave us even more image quality."

So my best guess would be that Dougherty really just wanted to shoot anamorphic film, but for practical reasons was forced to shoot digital. He wanted Alexas because they're regarded as the most "film-like" of the digital cinema cameras, but wasn't willing to forego the 2x anamorphics and knew he needed a lot of resolution - well over 4K - for recomposing certain visual effects shots in order to deliver a 4K master. That made the Alexa 65 with spherical lenses his only choice for those shots, and they just slapped the Panavision lenses on the same camera for the rest of the movie because why not? Conjecture of course, but that's my educated guess.

[testmon112]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I saw Endgame this Friday on IMAX 3D xenon. Apart from the movie, which was beautiful, sad, fresh and powerful at times, the IMAX 3D was overwhelming. I was sitting centre row, centre seat and the 3D was too much. It hurt my eyes seeing so much depth. Not joking. My eyes eventually adjusted after the first half hour and then I didn't notice much 3D anymore (It was there). I personally thought the 3D could give someone a heart attack and would've personally liked it dialled down a bit. A lot of the aerial shots just looked like miniatures, despite not being miniatures. This is the problem with 3D.
Another thing is there were a lot of shots where the characters' faces and bodies just looked squeezed inside. I know they used anamorphic but this much distortion shouldn't have been allowed to remain. It felt as if they took the scope image and then stretched it vertically and added a few extra bits at top and bottom. It was distracting.
If the scope version has the proportions correct, then I'd assume that such a thing was done indeed. It may have been that they squeezed it vertically to avoid loss of image info at the sides because the Alexa65 has a 2.11:1 sensor. They might have stretched it from 2.11:1 to 1.90:1.
Were the faces as squeezed inside in the scope version Geoff?

Pretty much what i was saying but I like the distortion lol. Considering the use of older lenses. Also, older anamorphic lenses tend to have more distortion (especially wider angle 35mm and lower lenses). Reading interviews with both Directors and cast the nature of the shoot was much more similar to that of a fast-paced television production with multi-cam setups and whatnot. I'm not surprised they couldn't keep complete quality control with older lenses matched with rehoused Panavision ones considering Opaloch would delegate to Second Unit and VFX teams etc. Remember they shot both Infinity War & Endgame simultaneously for principal.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Prometheus in IMAX indeed used 2.0 (I saw it in digital IMAX, 15/70 showing was sold out but still really enjoyed the experience) but seems to have been an expanded image and not cropped, as it is stated to have audiences “see more of the image”. Which is what I believed, but did take a quick look to make sure that was correct.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...157445105.html

As I said, I read it in an article or other with one of the post-production people but I'm damned if I can find it now.

Originally Posted by testmon112

Pretty much what i was saying but I like the distortion lol. Considering the use of older lenses. Also, older anamorphic lenses tend to have more distortion (especially wider angle 35mm and lower lenses). Reading interviews with both Directors and cast the nature of the shoot was much more similar to that of a fast-paced television production with multi-cam setups and whatnot. I'm not surprised they couldn't keep complete quality control with older lenses matched with rehoused Panavision ones considering Opaloch would delegate to Second Unit and VFX teams etc. Remember they shot both Infinity War & Endgame simultaneously for principal.

But these lenses don't distort like that across the entire frame. Yes, if you watch Hateful Eight and pay attention to the edges of the frame then with the widest lenses you can see the compression at the periphery when the camera moves, but I saw nothing in H8 or Rogue One to suggest that there's a constant 'stretch' to this glass. Panavision put together a completely new set for the IW/EG shoot (though they put together some new models for H8 as well) but even so, you'd think that someone would've noticed that it makes everyone look like they've been on a diet. And not just for some quick and dirty second unit or VFX plate stuff, but for live action principal photography with the main cast standing dead centre in frame. To me it really does look like they just got the anamorphosis wrong when sizing it up in post.

@ Riddhi

I've only seen it in 'scope and it looked stretched there too.

Originally Posted by puddy77

Since the article didn't get into those specifics, I played around with the Arri Frame Line Composer for a general idea.

If they shot the Alexa 65 open gate, 2x anamorphic would be 3700x3100, which is almost the same as the Alexa LF's 3696x3096. But I'll assume the LF wasn't widely available at the start of their production.

But since the Panavisions they used don't cover that full frame area (appendix A of the LF white paper), I'll assume they shot in 4.3k crop mode. That would be 3438x2880. Still more pixels than the regular Alexa's 2628x2202.

As UFA has been at pains to point out, we're not talking about what specific 4:3/ana mode the Alexa 65 can shoot in because that presumes the usage of a lens that can cover that image circle. No, it's about the amount of the A65's sensor that the 2x glass, designed for 4-perf 35mm coverage, can specifically cover without undue distortion or vignetting.

Using bigger lenses on a smaller sensor is one thing, like The Hate U Give shooting with the UP70 anamorphics on DXL (which is basically VistaVision), but smaller glass on a bigger sensor - and a sensor which is not materially different from its smaller siblings apart from having more pixels - seems to be rather pointless to me.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Right, but those are usually limited to a few scenes or shots, it's usually not the entire movie.



I remember the AOTC conversion, they even made special posters with Yoda and it said something like "Size does matter", but at least in that case they were being very upfront about the need to alter the movie for that format due to technical limitations!

Apollo 13 was the same also

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I think what he was getting at, is that Disney usually open matte's certain movies for their IMAX engagements. I'm not all that enamored with letterboxing of scope movies on 4:3 IMAX screens, that's why I'll just choose to see 2.35/39 movies on a screen that is actually 'wide' (here in DC, the best screen in this respect is the Uptown).

You are correct.

What was Dumbo shot at? During the IMAX presentation it was full framed all the way. Same with the Endgame presentation.

I really expected Aladdin to be a color rich movie but it seemed not as bright as it should be.... could be the projector is in need of some TLC? This is the Manassas IMAX theater btw.

[Agent Kay]

Dumbo was the Burton standard 1.85:1 was it not?

A google says its a Laser install?

[testmon112]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

As I said, I read it in an article or other with one of the post-production people but I'm damned if I can find it now.


But these lenses don't distort like that across the entire frame. Yes, if you watch Hateful Eight and pay attention to the edges of the frame then with the widest lenses you can see the compression at the periphery when the camera moves, but I saw nothing in H8 or Rogue One to suggest that there's a constant 'stretch' to this glass. Panavision put together a completely new set for the IW/EG shoot (though they put together some new models for H8 as well) but even so, you'd think that someone would've noticed that it makes everyone look like they've been on a diet. And not just for some quick and dirty second unit or VFX plate stuff, but for live action principal photography with the main cast standing dead centre in frame. To me it really does look like they just got the anamorphosis wrong when sizing it up in post.

@ Riddhi

I've only seen it in 'scope and it looked stretched there too.

If anything it's only egregious on wider angle stuff (scene with planning time heist, on Titan 2 etc). Those Captain Marvel shots I posted earlier in the thread were ultimately corrected in the film (when i re-watched). I do agree though, yeah it's really weird that no one picked it up in post and corrected it.

[Geoff D]

That's just it though, getting a bit at the edges is one thing (though even that shouldn't be as noticeable as on H8 because the 1.90 extraction is being quite heavily centre-cropped out of the de-squeezed 2.65 image as shot) but the EG DCP I saw had a persistent stretch across the entire frame. I rewatched IW on disc prior to going to see EG and saw it several times in that too.

---------------------------

As for the anamorphic sensor coverage debate, it brings to mind when ARRI first introduced the 3.4K Open Gate mode for Alexa (this is before the 65 or the LF were a thing). In their own white paper they said that shooting 2x anamorphics in OG mode was unnecessary because it would only employ a tiny amount of extra photosites over the 2.8K 4:3 mode, and that's for the regular Alev III sensor never mind one that's three times as big, as in the 65. And yet, some movies did exactly that: shot with 2x glass in OG 3.4K mode, for all the difference it made, and changed out the lenses for sphericals when they needed VFX plates with more coverage, keeping it in OG mode so they don't have to keep switching the camera modes over. San Andreas and Star Trek Beyond come to mind. Pretty much the same deal with KOTM, only with the 65 rather than the regular Alexa.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Dumbo was the Burton standard 1.85:1 was it not?

A google says its a Laser install?

Yeah, Dumbo was 1.85 and probably had little to nothing to do with IMAX considerations, but rather the film’s cinematographer says it was because Burton likes 1.85 (certainly makes sense if you look at his filmography and rarely using scope).

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by testmon112

If anything it's only egregious on wider angle stuff (scene with planning time heist, on Titan 2 etc). Those Captain Marvel shots I posted earlier in the thread were ultimately corrected in the film (when i re-watched). I do agree though, yeah it's really weird that no one picked it up in post and corrected it.

I saw Laser IMAX, Dolby and Regular and there was the janky animorphic issues

[testmon112]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's just it though, getting a bit at the edges is one thing (though even that shouldn't be as noticeable as on H8 because the 1.90 extraction is being quite heavily centre-cropped out of the de-squeezed 2.65 image as shot) but the EG DCP I saw had a persistent stretch across the entire frame. I rewatched IW on disc prior to going to see EG and saw it several times in that too.

[Show spoiler]

The second screenshot is what I was seeing in some shots throughout the film. Elongated faces and whatnot. There are other examples (I noted before) which were more apparent. Maybe it might just simply be a single lens or two that's the offender. Also. because there are scenes/shots with Thanos in the ship that are effected as well which are full CGI with performance capture

[Show spoiler]Especially the scene with Nebula & Gamora

. It's just all round weird it might be connected to VFX finishing (perfromance capture), who knows.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

As for the anamorphic sensor coverage debate, it brings to mind when ARRI first introduced the 3.4K Open Gate mode for Alexa (this is before the 65 or the LF were a thing). In their own white paper they said that shooting 2x anamorphics in OG mode was unnecessary because it would only employ a tiny amount of extra photosites over the 2.8K 4:3 mode, and that's for the regular Alev III sensor never mind one that's three times as big, as in the 65. And yet, some movies did exactly that: shot with 2x glass in OG 3.4K mode, for all the difference it made, and changed out the lenses for sphericals when they needed VFX plates with more coverage, keeping it in OG mode so they don't have to keep switching the camera modes over. San Andreas and Star Trek Beyond come to mind. Pretty much the same deal with KOTM, only with the 65 rather than the regular Alexa.

There are lenses from Cooke and Caldwell with 1.8x squeezes (well, 1.79x in Caldwell's case) that are designed for "full-frame" 36x24mm coverage on cinema cameras, which'd at least mostly cover the Alexa LF, Sony Venice, Red Monstro, Panavision Millennium DXLs and Canon EOS C700 FF. Obviously not enough to cover the 65, but that sensor's so wide anyway that going above 1.25x Ultra Panatars is ridiculous from a purely image-fidelity standpoint anyway.

EDIT:
Here's an interesting wrinkle I found by chance in an interview with some guys from Panavision - apparently they've been rebuilding some of their 2x lenses for large format sensors without actually advertising them!

We have the new, expanded 2x squeeze anamorphics that cover the full height of the 5:4 full format sensors... Our 2x squeeze anamorphic lenses for Super35 were traditionally based on the Academy aperture or sensor height, which is about 18mm. Now, with the new class of sensors, the image height ranges from 20mm to 25mm high. So, we had to redesign our anamorphic lenses to cover up to 25mm height. Basically, it's a redesign or a re-spin of our existing 2x squeeze anamorphic inventory to cover the full height typical of the full format cameras like the LF, Venice or the DXL... In most cases, we actually take the existing lenses and modify them. We've modified the optics, rescaled the focus and rebranded the lenses to reflect their new iteration. It was kind of a partial re-design, but it wasn't from the ground up.

These aren't even mentioned anywhere else on Panavision's website that I could find! He did say they "rebranded" them, so presumably KotM didn't use these as the lenses they mention are all existing lines... but it's cool to know they exist.

Source

[Geoff D]

Nice, that would pretty much cover all the height that the Alexa 65 sensor could offer, but as said there's still no greatly compelling reason to shoot even an expanded 2x lens with such a wide sensor, you're wasting a lot of acreage. An 8/35 sized sensor would still be the better bet in that case.

[Dubstar]

the new 'Aladdin' on the Dolby Cinema screen at Tyson's is the first movie where I thought there was something wrong with my glasses, the image seemed not particularly sharp and the image/color did not have that 'pop' one usually associates with Dolby Cinema presentations - visually it was so subpar and inferior to 'John Wick 3' at my neighborhood non-Dolby Cinema screen. On the plus side, AMC took out the red floor lighting that was causing a haze on the screen, the new blue lighting while still causing a very minor same flaw is at least no where as obnoxious as the prior lighting.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

the new 'Aladdin' on the Dolby Cinema screen at Tyson's is the first movie where I thought there was something wrong with my glasses, the image seemed not particularly sharp and the image/color did not have that 'pop' one usually associates with Dolby Cinema presentations - visually it was so subpar and inferior to 'John Wick 3' at my neighborhood non-Dolby Cinema screen. On the plus side, AMC took out the red floor lighting that was causing a haze on the screen, the new blue lighting while still causing a very minor same flaw is at least no where as obnoxious as the prior lighting.

Georgetown's Dolby screen is now lit in blue now, too.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

the new 'Aladdin' on the Dolby Cinema screen at Tyson's is the first movie where I thought there was something wrong with my glasses, the image seemed not particularly sharp and the image/color did not have that 'pop' one usually associates with Dolby Cinema presentations - visually it was so subpar and inferior to 'John Wick 3' at my neighborhood non-Dolby Cinema screen. On the plus side, AMC took out the red floor lighting that was causing a haze on the screen, the new blue lighting while still causing a very minor same flaw is at least no where as obnoxious as the prior lighting.

Why are we getting mixed results even with these *upgraded* theaters?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

Georgetown's Dolby screen is now lit in blue now, too.

great ! but the only fault with Georgetown's screen is if you're sitting in the wrong seat, you can actually see a little bit of the EXIT sign slightly through the screen (that is left of the screen)

if the Hoffman did the same, it would be my favourite 'go to' Dolby Cinema screen

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Why are we getting mixed results even with these *upgraded* theaters?

fix a problem, create a new one ... ...

[xbs2034]

The last two IMAX digital locations in Manhattan (Kips Bay and 34st) are currently closed for laser renovations. The plan is to reopen them sometime in August, and Kips Bay will keep its scope screen format through the transition as well.

[Geoff D]

Endgame Stretchygate update: saw it again in regular 4K projection (I know it's a 2K DCP but even so, 4K projection has much less visible pixels) and aside from one or two moments where it still looked a lil' bit skinny it was nothing like as stretched that first cinema screening I saw, which must've had botched projection - yet I watched Captain Marvel on the same screen literally three hours earlier and it looked fine. Go figure. This time, after the first reel I forgot about it because it was a non-issue. Which was nice.